4. firme vs bukal

7/21/2019 4. Firme vs Bukal

1/18

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 146608. October 23, 2003]

SPOUSES CONSTANTE FIRE AN! A"UCENA E. FIRE,petitioners,vs. #U$A% ENTERPRISES AN! !E&E%OPENTCORPORATION,respondent.

! E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.'

T(e C)*e

This is a petition for review on certiorariof the Decision[1]dated 3 Januar !""1 ofthe #ourt of $ppea%s in #$&'(R( #V No( )"*+*( The #ourt of $ppea%s reversed theDecision[!]of the Re,iona% Tria% #ourt- .ranch !!3- /ue0on #it 2tria% court4- which he%dthat there was no perfected contract of sa%e since there was no consent on the part ofthe se%%er(

T(e F)ct*

5etitioner Spouses #onstante and $0ucena Fir6e 2Spouses Fir6e4 are there,istered owners of a parce% of %and [3]25ropert4 %ocated on Dah%ia

$venue- Fairview5ar7- /ue0on #it( Renato de #astro 2De #astro4- the vice presidentof .u7a% 8nterprises and Deve%op6ent #orporation 2.u7a% 8nterprises4 authori0ed hisfriend- Teodoro $vi%es 2$vi%es4- a 9ro7er- to ne,otiate with the Spouses Fir6e for thepurchase of the 5ropert(

On !: ;arch 1


2/18

Spouses Fir6e on !3 Januar 1


3/18

/ans+e/ees and success%/s in ine/es he a!%5e desc/i!ed $/%$e/"* +/ee +/%m a,, ,iens

and encum!/ances #has%e5e/

' is he/e!" muua,," a-/eed ha he 4ENDEE sha,, !ea/ a,, he ex$enses +%/ he

ca$ia, -ains ax* d%cumena/" sam$s* d%cumenai%n* n%a/i.ai%n* /em%5a, and

/e,%cai%n %+ he sGuae/s* /e-is/ai%n* /ans+e/ ax and %he/ +ees as ma" !e /eGui/ed!" ,a#

Tha he 4ENDOR sha,, $a" he /ea, esae ax +%/ he cu//en "ea/ and !ac6 /ea,

esae axes* cha/-es and $ena,ies i+ he/e a/e an")

'N W'TNESS WHEREOF* #e ha5e he/eun% a++ixed %u/ si-nau/es his da" %+

Fe!/ua/"* 02* a 7ue.%n &i"* Phi,i$$ines)

&ONSTANTE F'RME BUKAL ENTERPR'SES AND

DE4ELOPMENT &ORP)

BY:

A(U&ENA E) F'RME (ENA'DA A) DE &ASTRO

4ENDOR P/esiden

x x x

The Spouses Fir6e re@ected this First Draft 9ecause of severa% o9@ectiona9%e

conditions- inc%udin, the pa6ent of capita% ,ains and other ,overn6ent ta>es 9 these%%er and the re%ocation of the sAuatters at the se%%erBs e>pense( Durin, their second6eetin,- $vi%es presented to the Spouses Fir6e another draft deed of sa%e [=]2SecondDraft4 dated ;arch 1


4/18

5ropert at a cost of 5)"-""" per fa6i%( $fter the sAuatters vacated the 5ropert- .u7a%8nterprises fenced the area- covered it with fi%%in, 6ateria%s- and constructed posts andriprap( .u7a% 8nterprises spent appro>i6ate% 53""-""" for these i6prove6ents( In a%etter[*]dated * ;arch 1


5/18

This A?REEMENT* execued his da" %+ Fe!/ua/"* 02* !" and !e#een he

S$%uses &ONSTANTE F'RME and A(U&ENA E) F'RME* !%h %+ ,e-a, a-e* Fi,i$in%

cii.en and #ih $%sa, add/ess a * 7ue.%n &i"* he/eina+e/ /e+e//ed % as

he 4ENDORS* and BUKAL ENTERPR'SES and DE4ELOPMENT

&ORPORAT'ON* a c%/$%/ai%n du," %/-ani.ed and /e-ise/ed in acc%/dance #ih

Phi,i$$ine La#s* #ih $%sa, add/ess a Fai/5ie# Pa/6* 7ue.%n &i"* he/ein/e$/esened !" is P/esiden and &hie+ Execui5e O++ice/* he/eina+e/ /e+e//ed % as he

4ENDEE)

W'TNESSETH:

Tha +%/ and in c%nside/ai%n %+ he sum %+ THREE M'LL'ON TWO HUNDRED

TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND PESOS 8P9*==1*333)33;* Phi,i$$ine &u//enc"*

$a"a!,e in he +%/m he/eina+e/ ex$/essed* a-/eed % se,, % he 4ENDEE and he

4ENDEE has a-/eed % !u" +/%m he 4ENDORS* a $a/ce, %+ ,and siuaed a Dah,ia

A5enue c%/ne/ R%,ex S/ee* Fai/5ie# Pa/6* 7ue.%n &i"* c%nainin- an a/ea %+ SGua/e Mee/s m%/e %/ ,ess* %+ #hich he 4ENDORS a/e he a!s%,ue /e-ise/ed

%#ne/s in acc%/dance #ih he Land Re-is/ai%n Ac* as e5idenced !" T/ans+e/

&e/i+icae %+ Ti,e N%) =>1=19 issued !" he Re-ise/ %+ Deeds %+ 7ue.%n &i"* m%/e

$a/icu,a/," desc/i!ed and !%unded as +%,,%#s:

8DES&R'PT'ON AND BOUNDAR'ES OF PROPERTY;

THE FURTHER TERMS AND &OND'T'ONS OF THE &ONTRA&T ARE AS

FOLLOWS:

1( The V8ND88 a,rees to pa the V8NDORS upon e>ecution of this #ontract thesu6 of ON8 ;IION 58SOS 51-"""-"""(""4- 5hi%ippine #urrenc- asdownpa6ent and a,rees to pa the 9a%ance of TEO ;IION TEO CNDR8DTE8NTG FOR TCOS$ND 58SOS 5!-!!+-"""(""4 at the post office addressof the V8NDORS in /ue0on #it- or such other p%ace or Office as the V8NDORS6a desi,nate within a period of si>t )"4 das counted fro6 the date of this#ontractH

!( The V8NDORS have hereunto authori0ed the V8ND88 to 6ort,a,e the propertand su96it this #ontract- to,ether with a certified true cop of the T#T- Ta>Dec%aration- Ta> #%earance and Vicinitot 5%an- with their endin, .an7( The

proceeds of the V8ND88BS oan sha%% direct% 9e paid and re6itted 9 the .an7 tothe V8NDORSH

3( The said parce% of %and sha%% re6ain in the na6e of the V8NDORS unti% theendin, .an7 of the V8ND88 sha%% have issued a etter 'uarant 5a6ent in favorof the V8NDORS- at which ti6e the V8NDORS a,ree to e>ecute a Deed of

$9so%ute Sa%e in favor of the V8ND88 and cause the issuance of the #ertificate ofTit%e in the na6e of the %atter( The #apita% 'ains Ta> and Docu6entar Sta6pssha%% 9e char,ed fro6 the V8NDORS in accordance with %awH


6/18

+( The pa6ent of the 9a%ance of 5!-!!+-"""("" 9 the V8ND88 to theV8NDORS sha%% 9e within a period of si>t )"4 das effective fro6 the date of this#ontract( $fter the %apse of )" das and the %oan has not et 9een re%eased due tofortuitous events the V8ND88 sha%% pa an interest of the 9a%ance a 6onth%interest 9ased on e>istin, 9an7 rate unti% said fortuitous event is no %on,er presentH

=( The V8ND88 sha%% re6ove and re%ocate the SAuatters- however- such actua%-reasona9%e and necessar e>penses sha%% 9e char,ed to the V8NDORS uponpresentation of receipts and docu6ents to support the actH

)( The V8ND88 sha%% 9e a%%owed for a%% %e,a% purposes to ta7e possession of theparce% of %and after the e>ecution of this #ontract and pa6ent of thedownpa6entH

*( The V8ND88 sha%% shou%der a%% e>penses %i7e the docu6entation- re,istration-transfer ta> and re%ocation of the propert(

'N W'TNESS WHEREOF* #e ha5e he/eun% a++ixed %u/ si-nau/es his da" %+

Fe!/ua/"* 02* a 7ue.%n &i"* Phi,i$$ines)

&ONSTANTE E) F'RME BUKAL ENTERPR'SES DE4) &ORP)

4ENDOR 4ENDEE

A(U&ENA E) F'RME BY:

4ENDOR

P/esiden I &hie+ Execui5e O++ice/

> > >

The Spouses Fir6e did not accept the Third Draft 9ecause the found its provisions

one&sided( The Spouses Fir6e particu%ar% opposed the provision on the de%iver of the5ropertBs tit%e to .u7a% 8nterprises for the %atter to o9tain a %oan fro6 the 9an7 and usethe proceeds to pa for the 5ropert( The Spouses Fir6e repeated% to%d$vi%es that the5ropert was not for sa%e when $vi%es ca%%ed on ! and + ;arch 1


7/18

&ORPORAT'ON is he/e!" %/de/ed % $a" he de+endans S$%uses &%nsane and

A.ucena Fi/me:

0) he sum %+ Th/ee Hund/ed Thi/" Fi5e Th%usand Nine Hund/ed Six"

F%u/ and 3033 8P992*>1)3; as and !" #a" %+ acua, and

c%m$ensa%/" dama-es

=) he sum %+ Fi5e Hund/ed Th%usand Pes%s 8P233*333)33; as and !" #a"

%+ m%/a, dama-es

9) he sum %+ One Hund/ed Th%usand Pes%s 8P033*333)33; as and !" #a"

%+ a%/ne"Cs +ees and

1) he c%ss %+ he sui)

SO ORDERED)[1)]

.u7a% 8nterprises appea%ed to the #ourt of $ppea%s- which reversed and set asidethe decision of the tria% court( The dispositive portion of the decision reads?

WHEREFORE* $/emises c%nside/ed* he Decisi%n* daed Au-us @* 01=19 % a$$e,,an) A$$e,,an isdi/eced % de,i5e/ he $a"men %+ he $u/chase $/ice %+ he $/%$e/" #ihin six" da"s

+/%m he +ina,i" %+ his ud-men) &%ss a-ains a$$e,,ees)

SO ORDERED)[1*]

Cence- the instant petition(

T(e R+-/ o t(e Tr-) Co+rt

The tria% court he%d there was no perfected contract of sa%e( .u7a% 8nterprises fai%edto esta9%ish that the Spouses Fir6e ,ave their consent to the sa%e of the 5ropert( Theparties did not ,o 9eond the ne,otiation sta,e and there was no evidence of 6eetin,of the 6inds 9etween the parties( Further6ore- $vi%es had no va%id authorit to 9ind.u7a% 8nterprises in the sa%e transaction( nder Sections !3 and 3) No( *4 of the#orporation #ode- the corporate power to purchase a specific propert is e>ercised 9the .oard of Directors of the corporation( Eithout an authori0ation fro6 the .oard of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn17


8/18

Directors- $vi%es cou%d not va%id% fina%i0e the purchase of the 5ropert on 9eha%f of.u7a% 8nterprises( There is no 9asis to app% the Statute of Frauds since there was noperfected contract of sa%e(

T(e R+-/ o t(e Co+rt o Ae)*

The #ourt of $ppea%s he%d that the %ac7 of a 9oard reso%ution authori0in, $vi%es toact on 9eha%f of .u7a% 8nterprises in the purchase of the 5ropert was cured 9ratification( .u7a% 8nterprises ratified the purchase when it fi%ed the co6p%aint for theenforce6ent of the sa%e(

The #ourt of $ppea%s a%so he%d there was a perfected contract of sa%e( Theappe%%ate court ru%ed that the Spouses Fir6e revea%ed their intent to se%% the 5ropertwhen the 6et with $vi%es twice( The Spouses Fir6e re@ected the First Draft 9ecausethe considered the ter6s unaccepta9%e( Ehen $vi%es presented the Second Draft

without the o9@ectiona9%e provisions- the Spouses Fir6e no %on,er had an cause forrefusin, to se%% the 5ropert( On the other hand- the acts of .u7a% 8nterprises in fencin,the 5ropert- constructin, posts- re%ocatin, the sAuatters and o9tainin, a %oan topurchase the 5ropert are circu6stances supportin, their c%ai6 that there was aperfected contract of sa%e(

The Spouses Fir6e a%%owed .u7a% 8nterprises to e>ercise acts of ownership overthe 5ropert when the %atter introduced i6prove6ents on the 5ropert and evicted thesAuatters( These acts constitute partia% perfor6ance of the contract of sa%e that ta7esthe ora% contract out of the scope of the Statute of Frauds(

T(e I**+e*

The Spouses Fir6e raise the fo%%owin, issues?

1( EC8TC8R TC8 #ORT OF $558$S 8RR8D IN FINDIN' TC$T TC8R8 E$S $58RF8#T8D #ONTR$#T OF S$8 .8TE88N 58TITION8RS $NDR8S5OND8NT D8S5IT8 TC8 $DD#8D 8VID8N#8 5$T8NTG TO TC8#ONTR$RGH

!( EC8TC8R TC8 #ORT OF $558$S 8RR8D IN NOT FINDIN' TC$T TC8$8'8D #ONTR$#T OF S$8 IS 8NFOR#8$.8 D8S5IT8 TC8 F$#T TC$TTC8 S$;8 IS #OV8R8D .G TC8 ST$TT8 OF FR$DSH

3( EC8TC8R TC8 #ORT OF $558$S 8RR8D IN DISR8'$RDIN' TC8 F$#TTC$T IT E$S NOT 8'$G $ND F$#T$G 5OSSI.8 FOR R8S5OND8NTTO 58RF8#T $ #ONTR$#T OF S$8H $ND

+( TC8 #ORT OF $558$S 8RR8D IN RIN' TC$T TC8 $E$RD .G TC8 TRI$#ORT OF ;OR$ $ND #O;58NS$TORG D$;$'8S TO 58TITION8RS ISI;5RO58R([1:]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn18


9/18

T(e R+-/ o t(e Co+rt

The petition is 6eritorious(

The funda6enta% Auestion for reso%ution is whether there was a perfected contract

of sa%e 9etween the Spouses Fir6e and .u7a% 8nterprises( This reAuires a review ofthe factua% and %e,a% issues of this case( $s a ru%e- on% Auestions of %aw are appea%a9%eto this #ourt under Ru%e += [1


10/18

[!h( 2=H 8>h( 24 to the Spouses Fir6eon% durin, their second 6eetin,( Ce a%so stated that he prepared and presented to theSpouses Fir6e the First Draft 8>h( 2#4 and the Second Draft 8>h( 2#&14 durin, theirfirst or second 6eetin,( Ce testified?

$TTG( ;$R/8D$?

/? On pa,e 11 of the tsn dated $u,ust =- 1hi9it # and #&1 [which] were identified 9 ou( Ehen was thispresented to Dr( Fir6e

$? This is the sa6e(

/? 8>hi9it # and #&1$? Ges 9ecause I prepared two docu6ents durin, our 6eetin,( One a%read with

notaria%- the one without notaria% pa,e and the other one with notaria% pa,ea%read- so I prepared two docu6ents 9ut with the sa6e contents 9oth were datedFe9ruar of 1


11/18

Further6ore- $vi%es ad6itted that the first proposa% of .u7a% 8nterprises wasat 5!-="" per sAuare 6eter for the 5ropert([3*] .ut the First- Second and Third Drafts ofthe deed of sa%e prepared 9 $vi%es a%% indicated a purchase price of 5+-""" per sAuare6eter or a %u6p su6 of 53-!!+-""" 5+-""" per sA(6( > :") sA(6( K 53-!!+-"""4 forthe 5ropert( Cence- $vi%es cou%d not have presented an of these draft deeds of sa%e to

the Spouses Fir6e durin, their first 6eetin,(#onsiderin, the ,%arin, inconsistencies in $vi%esB testi6on- it was proper for the

tria% court to ,ive 6ore credence to the testi6on of Dr( Fir6e(

8ven after the two 6eetin,s with $vi%es- the Spouses Fir6e were fir6 in theirdecision not to se%% the 5ropert( $vi%es ca%%ed the Spouses Fir6e twice after their %ast6eetin,( The Spouses Fir6e infor6ed $vi%es that the were not se%%in, the 5ropert([3:] $vi%es hi6se%f ad6itted this durin, his testi6on- thus?

/( Now- the ne>t Auestion which states? 2.ut did ou not have an occasion to ta%7 tohi6 after that second 6eetin, and the answer of Dr( Fir6e is 2Ce ca%%ed up a6onth after- thatBs ;arch !- 1


12/18

#onsent is one of the essentia% e%e6ents of a va%id contract( The #ivi% #odeprovides?

A/) 090istence of aperfected contract of sa%e( [+1]Thus- where there is want of consent- the contract is non&e>istent([+!]$s he%d in Salonga, et al. v. Farrales, et al.?[+3]

' is e,emena/" ha c%nsen is an essenia, e,emen +%/ he exisence %+ a c%n/ac* and

#he/e i is #anin-* he c%n/ac is n%nexisen) The essence of consent is the

conformity of the parties on the terms of the contract, the acceptance by one of the

offer made by the other. The c%n/ac % se,, is a !i,ae/a, c%n/ac) Whe/e he/e is

me/e," an %++e/ !" %ne $a/"* #ih%u he acce$ance %+ he %he/* he/e is n% c%nsen)

8Em$hasis su$$,ied;

In this case- the Spouses Fir6e f%at% re@ected the offer of $vi%es to 9u the 5roperton 9eha%f of .u7a% 8nterprises( There was therefore no concurrence of the offer and theacceptance on the su9@ect 6atter- consideration and ter6s of pa6ent as wou%d resu%tin a perfected contract of sa%e( [++]nder $rtic%e 1+*= of the #ivi% #ode- the contract ofsa%e is perfected at the 6o6ent there is a 6eetin, of 6inds on the thin, which is theo9@ect of the contract and on the price(

$nother piece of evidence which supports the contention of the Spouses Fir6e thatthe did not consent to the contract of sa%e is the fact the never si,ned an deed ofsa%e( If the Spouses Fir6e were a%read a,reea9%e to the offer of .u7a% 8nterprises ase69odied in the Second Draft- then the Spouses Fir6e cou%d have si6p% affi>ed theirsi,natures on the deed of sa%e- 9ut the did not(

8ven the e>istence of a si,ned docu6ent purportin, to 9e a contract of sa%e doesnot prec%ude a findin, that the contract is inva%id when the evidence shows that therewas no 6eetin, of the 6inds 9etween the se%%er and 9uer( [+=]In this case- what wereoffered in evidence were 6ere unsi,ned deeds of sa%e which have no pro9ative va%ue([+)].u7a% 8nterprises fai%ed to show the e>istence of a perfected contract of sa%e 9

co6petent proof(Second- there was no approva% fro6 the .oard of Directors of .u7a% 8nterprises as

wou%d fina%i0e an transaction with the Spouses Fir6e( $vi%es did not have the properauthorit to ne,otiate for .u7a% 8nterprises( $vi%es testified that his friend- De #astro-had as7ed hi6 to ne,otiate with the Spouses Fir6e to 9u the 5ropert( [+*]De #astro- as.u7a% 8nterprisesB vice president- testified that he authori0ed $vi%es to 9u the 5ropert([+:]Cowever- there is no .oard Reso%ution authori0in, $vi%es to ne,otiate and purchasethe 5ropert on 9eha%f of .u7a% 8nterprises( [+


13/18

It is the 9oard of directors or trustees which e>ercises a%6ost a%% the corporatepowers in a corporation( Thus- the #orporation #ode provides?

SE&) =9) The board of directors or trustees) Un,ess %he/#ise $/%5ided in his

&%de* he c%/$%/ae $%#e/s %+ a,, c%/$%/ai%ns +%/med unde/ his &%de sha,, !e

exe/cised* a,, !usiness c%nduced and a,, $/%$e/" %+ such c%/$%/ai%ns c%n/%,,ed andhe,d !" he !%a/d %+ di/ec%/s %/ /usees % !e e,eced +/%m am%n- he h%,de/s %+

s%c6* %/ #he/e he/e is n% s%c6* +/%m am%n- he mem!e/s %+ he c%/$%/ai%n* #h%

sha,, h%,d %++ice +%/ %ne 80; "ea/ and uni, hei/ success%/s a/e e,eced and Gua,i+ied) x

x x

SE&) 9>) Corporate powers and capacity) E5e/" c%/$%/ai%n inc%/$%/aed unde/

his &%de has he $%#e/ and ca$aci":

x x x

@) T% $u/chase* /ecei5e* a6e %/ -/an* h%,d* c%n5e"* se,,* ,ease* $,ed-e*

m%/-a-e and %he/#ise dea, #ih such /ea, and $e/s%na, $/%$e/"* inc,udin-secu/iies and !%nds %+ %he/ c%/$%/ai%ns* as he /ansaci%n %+ a ,a#+u,

!usiness %+ he c%/$%/ai%n ma" /eas%na!," and necessa/i," /eGui/e* su!ec %

he ,imiai%ns $/esc/i!ed !" he ,a# and he &%nsiui%n)

x x x

nder these provisions- the power to purchase rea% propert is vested in the 9oardof directors or trustees( Ehi%e a corporation 6a appoint a,ents to ne,otiate for thepurchase of rea% propert needed 9 the corporation- the fina% sa wi%% have to 9e withthe 9oard- whose approva% wi%% fina%i0e the transaction( [="]$ corporation can on% e>ercise

its powers and transact its 9usiness throu,h its 9oard of directors and throu,h itsofficers and a,ents when authori0ed 9 a 9oard reso%ution or its 9&%aws( [=1]$s he%din%F &ea$ty ' (eve$opment, Inc. v. (iese$man Freight )ervices, *o.?[=!]

Seci%n =9 %+ he &%/$%/ai%n &%de ex$/ess," $/%5ides ha he c%/$%/ae $%#e/s %+

a,, c%/$%/ai%ns sha,, !e exe/cised !" he !%a/d %+ di/ec%/s) us as a nau/a, $e/s%n

ma" auh%/i.e an%he/ % d% ce/ain acs in his !eha,+* s% ma" he !%a/d %+ di/ec%/s %+

a c%/$%/ai%n 5a,id," de,e-ae s%me %+ is +unci%ns % indi5idua, %++ice/s %/ a-ens

a$$%ined !" i) Thus, contracts or acts of a corporation must be made either by the

board of directors or by a corporate agent duly authorized by the board. Absent

such valid delegation/authorization, the rule is that the declarations of an

individual director relating to the affairs of the corporation, but not in the course

of, or connected with, the performance of authorized duties of such director, are

held not binding on the corporation) 8Em$hasis su$$,ied;

In this case- $vi%es- who ne,otiated the purchase of the 5ropert- is neither anofficer of .u7a% 8nterprises nor a 6e69er of the .oard of Directors of .u7a%8nterprises( There is no .oard Reso%ution authori0in, $vi%es to ne,otiate and purchase
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/111448.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/111448.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/111448.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/111448.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn52


14/18

the 5ropert for .u7a% 8nterprises( There is a%so no evidence to prove that .u7a%8nterprises approved whatever transaction $vi%es 6ade with the Spouses Fir6e( Infact- the president of .u7a% 8nterprises did not si,n an of the deeds of sa%e presentedto the Spouses Fir6e( 8ven De #astro ad6itted that he had never 6et theSpouses Fir6e([=3]#onsiderin, a%% these circu6stances- it is hi,h% i6pro9a9%e

for$vi%es to fina%i0e an contract of sa%e with the Spouses Fir6e(Further6ore- the #ourt notes that in the #o6p%aint fi%ed 9 .u7a% 8nterprises with

the tria% court- $vi%es si,ned [=+] the verification and certification of non&foru6 shoppin,([==]The verification and certification of non&foru6 shoppin, was not acco6panied 9proof that .u7a% 8nterprises authori0ed $vi%es to fi%e the co6p%aint on 9eha%f of .u7a%8nterprises(

The power of a corporation to sue and 9e sued is e>ercised 9 the 9oard ofdirectors( 2The phsica% acts of the corporation- %i7e the si,nin, of docu6ents- can 9eperfor6ed on% 9 natura% persons du% authori0ed for the purpose 9 corporate 9&%awsor 9 a specific act of the 9oard of directors( [=)]

The purpose of verification is to secure an assurance that the a%%e,ations in thep%eadin, are true and correct and that it is fi%ed in ,ood faith( [=*]True- this reAuire6ent isprocedura% and not @urisdictiona%( Cowever- the tria% court shou%d have ordered thecorrection of the co6p%aint since $vi%es was neither an officer of .u7a% 8nterprises norauthori0ed 9 its .oard of Directors to act on 9eha%f of .u7a% 8nterprises(

(et(er t(e St)t+te o Fr)+* -* )-c)be

The #ourt of $ppea%s he%d that partia% perfor6ance of the contract of sa%e ta7es the

ora% contract out of the scope of the Statute of Frauds( This conc%usion arose fro6 theappe%%ate courtBs erroneous findin, that there was a perfected contract of sa%e( Therecords show that there was no perfected contract of sa%e( There is therefore no 9asisfor the app%ication of the Statute of Frauds( The app%ication of the Statute of Fraudspresupposes the e>istence of a perfected contract( [=:]$rtic%e 1+"3 of the #ivi% #odeprovides?

A/) 0139) The +%,,%#in- c%n/acs a/e unen+%/cea!,e* un,ess he" a/e /ai+ied:

80; Th%se ene/ed in% in he name %+ an%he/ $e/s%n !" %ne #h% has !een

-i5en n% auh%/i" %/ ,e-a, /e$/esenai%n* %/ #h% has aced !e"%nd his

$%#e/s

8=; Th%se ha d% n% c%m$," #ih he Saue %+ F/auds as se +%/h in hisnum!e/) 'n he +%,,%#in- cases an a-/eemen he/ea+e/ made sha,, !e unen+%/cea!,e

!" aci%n* un,ess he same* %/ s%me n%e %/ mem%/andum he/e%+* !e in #/iin- and

su!sc/i!ed !" he $a/" cha/-ed %/ !" his a-en e5idence* he/e+%/e* %+ he a-/eemen

cann% !e /ecei5ed #ih%u he #/iin-* %/ a sec%nda/" e5idence %+ is c%nens:

> > >
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn58


15/18

8e; An a-/eemen +%/ he ,easin- +%/ a ,%n-e/ $e/i%d han %ne "ea/* %/ +%/ he sa,e %+

/ea, $/%$e/" %/ %+ an ine/es he/ein

> > >

(et(er #+) Eterr-*e* -* ) b+-er - /oo )-t(

.u7a% 8nterprises is not a 9ui%der in ,ood faith( The Spouses Fir6e did notaccept $vi%esB offer to purchase the 5ropert( $vi%es testified that when he ca%%ed theSpouses Fir6e on ! ;arch 1


16/18

In the #o6p%aint it does not state ;arch 3( ;a9e counse% was thin7in, of this5ara,raph ) which states- 2Ehen the propert was rid of the sAuatters on ;arch !-1>(

$TTG( 8J8R#ITO?

/? )o, you ound out on March , -5 that the deendants were no $onger

interested in se$$ing to you the property. Is that correct!

$? 6es, sir, because Mr. %vi$es re$ayed it to me.

/? r. A7-e* re)e to o+ t()t t(e So+*e* F-r9e ere o o/er -tere*te- *e-/ to o+ t(e roert - )rc( 2, 1::;. I* t()t correct5

$?


17/18

consent of the Spouses Fir6e( Ehen the Spouses Fir6e %earned a9out theunauthori0ed constructions 6ade 9 .u7a% 8nterprises on the 5ropert- the advisedthe %atter to desist fro6 further acts of trespass on their 5ropert( [)"]

The #ivi% #ode provides?

A/) 11) He #h% !ui,ds* $,ans %/ s%#s in !ad +aih %n he ,and %+ an%he/* ,%ses #hais !ui,* $,aned %/ s%#n #ih%u /i-h %+ indemni")

A/) 123) The %#ne/ %+ he ,and %n #hich an"hin- has !een !ui,* $,aned %/ s%#n in

!ad +aih ma" demand he dem%,ii%n %+ he #%/6* %/ ha he $,anin- %/ s%#in- !e

/em%5ed* in %/de/ % /e$,ace hin-s in hei/ +%/me/ c%ndii%n a he ex$ense %+ he

$e/s%n #h% !ui,* $,aned %/ s%#ed %/ he ma" c%m$e, he !ui,de/ %/ $,ane/ % $a" he

$/ice %+ he ,and* and he %#ne/ he $/%$e/ /en)

nder these provisions the Spouses Fir6e have the fo%%owin, options? 14 to

appropriate what .u7a% 8nterprises has 9ui%t without an o9%i,ation to pa inde6nitH !4to as7 .u7a% 8nterprises to re6ove what it has 9ui%tH or 34 to co6pe% .u7a% 8nterprisesto pa the va%ue of the %and([)1] Since the Spouses Fir6e are undou9ted% not se%%in, the5ropert to .u7a% 8nterprises- the 6a e>ercise an of the first two options( The 6aappropriate what has 9een 9ui%t without pain, inde6nit or the 6a as7 .u7a%8nterprises to re6ove what it has 9ui%t at .u7a% 8nterprisesB own e>pense(

.u7a% 8nterprises is not entit%ed to rei69urse6ent for the e>penses incurred inre%ocatin, the sAuatters( .u7a% 8nterprises spent for the re%ocation of the sAuatters evenafter %earnin, that the Spouses Fir6e were no %on,er interested in se%%in, the 5ropert(De #astro testified that even thou,h the Spouses Fir6e did not reAuire the6 to re6ovethe sAuatters- the chose to spend for the re%ocation of the sAuatters since the wereinterested in purchasin, the 5ropert([)!]

(et(er t(e So+*e* F-r9e )re et-te toco9e*)tor ) 9or) )9)/e*

The #ourt a,rees with the #ourt of $ppea%s to de%ete the award for co6pensatorand 6ora% da6a,es( In awardin, actua% da6a,es- the tria% court too7 into account thetrave%in, e>penses incurred 9 the Spouses Fir6e who are a%read residin, inthe nited States( Cowever- the tria% court fai%ed to consider the testi6on of Dr( Fir6e

that the nor6a%% trave% to the 5hi%ippines 6ore than once a ear to visit their chi%dren([)3]Thus- the e>penses for the roundtrip tic7ets dated 1


18/18

A/) ===0) N%mina, dama-es a/e adudicaed in %/de/ ha a /i-h %+ he $,aini++*

#hich has !een 5i%,aed %/ in5aded !" he de+endan* ma" !e 5indicaed %/

/ec%-ni.ed* and n% +%/ he $u/$%se %+ indemni+"in- he $,aini++ +%/ an" ,%ss su++e/ed

!" him)

A/) ====) The c%u/ ma" a#a/d n%mina, dama-es in e5e/" %!,i-ai%n a/isin- +/%man" s%u/ce enume/aed in a/ic,e 002@* %/ in e5e/" case #he/e an" $/%$e/" /i-h has

!een in5aded)

The award of da6a,es is a%so in accordance with $rtic%e +=1 of the #ivi% #odewhich states that the %andowner is entit%ed to da6a,es fro6 the 9ui%der in 9ad faith( [)=]

>EREFORE- we S8T $SID8 the Decision of the #ourt of $ppea%s and R8ND8Ra new one?

0) Dec,a/in- ha he/e #as n% $e/+eced c%n/ac %+ sa,e

=) O/de/in- Bu6a, Ene/$/ises % $a" he S$%uses Fi/me P93*333 as

n%mina, dama-es)

SO OR!ERE!.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), itug, andA!cuna, JJ., concur."nares#Santiago, J., on officia% %eave.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146608.htm#_ftn65

4. firme vs bukal

Documents